From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:18:39 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] run-command: detect finished children by closed pipe rather than waitpid
Message-ID: <5643BEBF.6000804@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kZTiGGL0t-CkeuWDfzX-pK_Lu8PZzE1sutq2jR_23B5xg@mail.gmail.com>

Am 11.11.2015 um 21:53 schrieb Stefan Beller:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> wrote:
>> I wonder why task_finish() callback gets to choose a signal. The point here
>> is, IIUC, when one child dies, the others must be halted, too. SIGTERM seems
>> to be the only sensible choice.
>
> SIGKILL would also do?
>
> In case you know your children, you can also send a SIGUSR1 or SIGUSR2.
>...
> So I am not convinced SIGTERM is the only true choice here. And because I
> have no idea which of the signals may be useful in the future, I decided to
> go with all of them.

Fair enough.

-- Hannes